Animal Rights, Veganism & Abortion (Considering Abortion From The Perspective Of Veganism And Animal Rights)

            We live in a time and age in which a vegan is glorified and a pro-lifer (anti-abortionist) is condemned by the secular world! The moral values of the secular world seem to have its feet firmly planted in midair.

            This situation confuses many Christians – the young and the old. Youngsters seem to think that being a vegan is to be kind to the animals. While this may be true, they, on the other hand, believe that the mother has the right to choose whether or not to continue with the pregnancy.

            Animal life, today, has a greater value than human life. Or so it seems!

            What does the Bible say about animal rights?

            Steve W Lemke, Professor of Philosophy and Ethics at the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, in an article entitled ‘Does the Bible Affirm That Animals Have Rights?’ says:¹

No, Scripture never specifically grants rights to animals. The Bible doesn't assume that animals have intrinsic rights, even the right to life. Unlike humans, animals were not created in the image of God. God made humans the pinnacle of His creation, with inherent worth and greater capacities than animals. He appointed humans to subdue and rule over all animals (Gn 1:20-31). God specifically approved the use of animals as food for humans (Gn 9:1-3; Lv 11:2-3).

Since animals have lesser value than humans, they shouldn't be given the rights accorded to human beings, and human life should never be sacrificed to save animal life.

Yes, the Bible affirms that humans have a moral obligation to treat animals humanely. Although animals are clearly not equal in worth to human beings, they have value since God created them as "good" (Gn 1:20-25). So, as part of our God-given stewardship, we shouldn't abuse or pointlessly harm animals. Scripture uses the same word to describe the animating force that God gave animals (nephesh, Gn 1:20-21, 24, 30) as it does in describing how He breathed a living soul into persons (Gn 2:7).

Unlike animals, human souls have unique capacities: self-awareness, abstract reasoning, an orientation toward the future, freedom, moral responsibility, and the capacity to have a relationship with God. Animal sacrifices presuppose that animals have value (Lv 4-6; Heb 9:11-28). Animal pain is a matter for moral concern because God cares for animals (Gn 7:2-4; Ps 104:10-30; 147:7-9; 148:7-10; Mt 6:26; Lk 12:6-7, 24).

Although God gave people permission to eat animals after the flood (Gn 9:1-3), this may have been a concession to human sinfulness. Vegetarianism practiced in the Garden of Eden (Gn 1:29-30; 2:16), and the prophecy that natural predators will live together peacefully in the future (Isa 11:6-8), suggest that the eating of animal flesh isn't God's ideal.

Scripture calls upon humans to treat animals humanely. The Mosaic law forbade the heartless treatment of birds, promising long life to those who don't abuse animals (Dt 22:6-7). Other regulations were given for the welfare of farm animals (Dt 22:1-4, 10; 25:4). Humane treatment of animals is a characteristic of godly living (Pr 12:10).  

            It’s quite clear that we are called to treat animals humanely. There is no doubt about it.

            But how could a vegan, who cares for plant and animal life, care less about human life?

            Interestingly, one of the basic defenses put up by the vegan camp to justify abortion is that plant and animals are sentient beings (having the power of perception by the senses e.g. able to perceive pain). They contend that fetuses are not sentient beings. Hence they find justification in killing (aborting) fetuses.

            If this argument is valid then it should apply to an adult human as well. A person in a coma (in a vegetative or in an unresponsive state) is generally considered to not feel pain. Is it then valid to kill this person because he/she cannot feel pain?  

            God is the creator and sustainer of life. This implies that only God can create or take life off the earth. However, even if euthanasia is to be considered, it could only be on the basis of administering medical support to merely extend one’s life when medial support is no longer helpful to a dying patient or when treatment is more burdensome to the dying patient. 

            If euthanasia is contemplated from within the Christian context, it would be predicated on the fact that death should not be resisted by medical means because a Christian’s eternal destiny is beyond death. For a Christian, death is a good death, for it ushers him/her into God’s presence.

            So if euthanasia is considered on a vegetative comatose patient, then it is not considered on the basis of pain, but on the basis of resisting death and eternity.

            If we merely think about pain as a reason for euthanasia, then scientists would inform us that even a comatose person in vegetative condition can exhibit signs of consciousness and feel emotions (cf. the case of Rom Houben²). Therefore, arguing for abortion based on ‘pain’ cannot be justified.

            It’s one thing for a secular person to consider abortion, but for a Christian to consider abortion is something else entirely.

            In fact, a very plausible argument can be made to justify that Christians who endorse abortion are not Christians, to begin with. Here’s an excerpt from my blog entitled ‘The Christianity of Abortion:’ ³

Chelsea Clinton, in an interview on September 13, 2018, said that as a deeply religious person, banning abortions would be unchristian to her.¹…

…Matt Walsh, in response to Chelsea’s comments on abortion, termed her as a Satanist:⁵

…The point is that Jesus Christ is the Lord of Life. He gives life to our children and commands us to care for the precious gift He has bestowed. It is the most twisted kind of heresy to suggest that God may breathe life into your child and then raise no objection if you crush the child's skull and throw his body in a medical waste dumpster. "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you," says the Book of Jeremiah. "Children are a gift from the Lord," says Psalm 127.

… Let us remember, also, that Jesus Christ was Incarnate as an unborn child. He was a "fetus," to use our modern term. A stage of human development cannot be anything less than sacred after the Lord Himself lived through that stage. Christianity is the only religion in the world that believes God Himself was once unborn. For this reason, no religion on Earth is less compatible with abortion than Christianity. You cannot be a pro-abortion Christian. It's like trying to square a circle. It just doesn't work.

Satanism, on the other hand, is deeply compatible with the pro-abortion view. The two go hand-in-hand, a match made in Hell…

It's not hard to see why satanists not only support abortion but consider it sacramental. Through abortion, a woman places her own comfort and convenience above the life of her child. She declares that her child's very humanity is contingent upon, and subordinate to, her desires. Pro-aborts are quite explicit about this. If you ask them when life begins, they'll tell you it begins whenever the mother wants it to begin. They ascribe Godlike power and authority to the individual. What else can we call this but the deification of the self? It is textbook satanism.

            Abortion is predicated on choice – the choice of the mother and maybe even the father. Such people remain in control of their lives, thereby they choose to abort.

            Being a Christian is also predicated on choice. A person chooses to believe in Christ. But in this instance, when a person chooses to believe in Christ, that person willfully surrenders his/her choice or submits his/her life to the rule of the Lord Jesus Christ.

          When the Lord Jesus rules our life, HIS choice becomes our choice. Our choice gets lost in HIS. From this time onwards, a Christian chooses to obey the Lord Jesus and the commands that are taught in the Bible.

            Christianity is not about having a strong social outlook. Christianity is all about loving God and being obedient to HIM and HIM alone. When we love God, we cannot ignore the social concerns of our world. However, caring for social concerns cannot supersede our obedience to God. Our allegiance is to God and to the sanctity of human life.

        Therefore, the entailment of the true Christianity is to hold a high view of God, obey HIM and HIS commands. Hence, true Christians oppose abortion. Those Christians who support abortion may not be Christians, so their deep religiosity does not matter to us.

Endnotes:

¹http://christian-victory.blogspot.com/2012/02/does-bible-affirm-that-animals-have.html

²https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-can-we-tell-if-a-comatose-patient-is-conscious/

³https://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-christianity-of-abortion.html   

Websites last accessed on 28^th February 2019.

Birth Control: A Christian Perspective in Sexual Ethics

A young woman uses a birth control pill and seeks to know if her act was sinful or not. A newly married couple desire temporary birth control to avoid early pregnancy. They believe the Bible’s teaching that children are a gift from God, so they seek advice about the validity of birth control from a biblical standpoint. Likewise, couples who believe their family is just the right size, may seek permanent birth control. Being in their forties and done with having children, they believe their family is just the right size. These real life questions seek not blind dogmatism, but reasonable answers to quench our soul’s thirst to please God by remaining on the godly side of ethics.

To gain better understanding, two questions should be answered: Is birth control acceptable, and if so, which methods are within the biblical framework?

In general, culture and religious adherents desire birth control for they deem it acceptable. However, the Roman Catholic teaching forbids birth control. Aquinas in his work Summa Contra Gentiles candidly rejected the practice of contraception, for it was ‘unnatural’ and a grave sin. Aquinas firmly believed that procreation is the natural physical outcome of a sexual intercourse.¹ Thus, any moral disputes regarding birth control is more from a religious standpoint, since nonbelievers take birth control for granted. However, since 1951, the Roman Catholic Church has provided official backing for the ‘rhythm’ method (sexual intercourse during the infertile phases of a woman’s reproductive cycle). The unreliability of the rhythm method, however, is a valid concern.

Does the Bible prohibit birth control? Scott Rae emphatically denies any form of biblical prohibition against birth control. He states that Onan’s crude form of employing birth control (Genesis 38: 9-10) was not to fulfill the duty and the responsibilities associated with raising a child.²

Some religiously mandate procreation to be the duty of man, thereby imposing religious shackles on birth control. However, marriage was primarily designed by God as a union of two individuals into one flesh. Procreation was the secondary aspect of marriage. Sexual intercourse has a twin purpose, ‘generative’ (to produce life) and ‘relational’ (enriching a marriage relationship). The generative purpose cannot always be attained because of various reasons such as, medical conditions, age of the wife etc. Thus, “married couples can have sex without procreation without violating any moral norm,” states Scott Rae.³

Some religious adherents could contend that God’s purpose for marriage was to ‘fill the earth’ (cf. Genesis 1: 28). A mere glance at the recent population statistics and its future predictions is concrete enough to present a persuasive case for the earth being ‘houseful’ now! Thereby the mandate to ‘fill the earth and subdue’ is already realized. This entails that the married couples who choose not to have children for all the right reasons need not be morally guilty for violating this biblical mandate.

The Bible is silent about the size of a family. When or how many children a couple should have is not stated in the Bible. One can argue either for a generous or a tight spacing between children. But stewardship is the key essence in spacing between children. If a couple decide to employ birth control techniques to avoid bearing children in tight spacing, one can argue that this couple is doing good to their own home (to pave way for proper parenting) and their society (not taxing the world’s resources). We can also justify this from the perspective of the family’s economical situation. If a family cannot provide for two children in a tight space of two years, then they need only to bear one. Having many children in an unaffordable situation damages the family’s financial situation, and thereby the peace and the health of the family. Thus birth control to space out or stop having children in a family is a profitable act of stewardship.

There is another delicate divine side to birth control. A couple can decide to use birth control to be good stewards of their God given resources. However, the sovereign God can overrule birth control procedures and gift this couple with a child. The birth of an unplanned or unwanted child does not offer the couple any incentive to abandon or neglect the child. They should trust in God to provide for the holistic wellness of this child.

The sovereign God who overrules birth control enforces birth control through HIS creational intent - the menopause of a woman, where she stops releasing eggs monthly. Thus the same God who mandated procreation also terminates procreation in HIS creation. Or we could infer that there is a God-ordained time limit for a couple to bear children.

If temporary birth control is ordained by God, there should be no valid reason against permanent birth control for the right reasons. There could be medical reasons prohibiting a woman from bearing children or a couple may even decide against having more children. In such instances, women or men may rightly employ permanent birth control. But what method of birth control can be employed?

Any ‘contraceptive’ method (preventing conception) is morally acceptable. But ‘abortifacient’ (causing abortion) methods are morally problematic. “IUDs prevent implantation, and RU-486 causes an implanted embryo to evacuate the uterus. Both are problematic from the view that embryos have full moral status” writes Scott Rae.⁴ (My previous blog “The Dilemma of Abortion” offers an insight into the moral problems in abortion.)

What about birth control pill or the morning-after pill? Many women use a birth control pill to avoid pregnancy. There is a contraceptive aspect to these pills which is not problematic (suppressing ovulation and thickening the cervical mucous to prevent sperm from fertilizing the egg in the case of birth control pill, and a very high dose of oestrogen & progesterone in the case of morning-after pill). Some medical professionals argue that there is an abortifacient aspect to these pills, which if proven, presents a valid moral problem. But the presence of an abortifacient aspect still remains inconclusive. If one considers usage of these pills, it is wise to consult a morally credible physician and be honest with him/her about your moral values and concerns about birth control. It is not a matter of one’s personal preference, but it is a matter of one’s conscience, which is consumed by God, until medical science proves the nature of these pills.

Thus, one can employ contraceptive methods for birth control, since sexual intercourse between married couples has a primary creational intent which is to enrich a marriage relationship.

In today’s world we see, read, and hear of unmarried youngsters gulping birth control pills to satisfy their sexual lusts. This reality has to be dealt with by considering the ‘premarital’ aspect of the sexual intercourse, and not the ‘birth control’ aspect. I will communicate my comprehension about premarital sex in my next blog.

The good Lord will always bless and keep you and yours. Amen.

References:

¹ Richard Higginson, Dilemmas: A Christian Approach to Moral Decision-Making, p87-89, 1988.

² Scott B. Rae, Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics, 3^rd Ed, p287-288, 2009.

³ Ibid., 288.

⁴ Ibid., 289.

⁵ Ibid.

The Dilemma of Abortion.

           Some situations we may face regarding abortion are: a decision to abort or to teach/advise or express an opinion. Whatever the case may be, our fundamentals on abortion should be architected on a solid foundation.

Two positions exist in the abortion debate: pro-life (anti-abortion) and pro-choice (accepting abortion). The pro-life position argues that the unborn is a person (a human being with life), hence should not be killed. The pro-choice groups have posited many arguments favoring abortion with one central assumption - that the unborn is not a full person. A few important pro-choice arguments are presented here:

1. The woman has the right to choose:

If the woman can choose what she wants to do, then by the same logic one should not condemn drugs, prostitution, suicide or the likes. Simply speaking, if a person can do what he wants, then all actions against one’s own body should be permissible. But we do not have an absolute claim over our own body! For example, a prostitute cannot justify her profession under the guise of poverty, a married man cannot solicit a prostitute for the sake of his pleasure, and a person cannot abuse his body through illegal drugs. Similarly, the woman has no absolute right over her body to make any choice.

Moreover, the fetus is not a part of the woman’s body, as a hand or an eye is a part. The fetus is attached to the mother through an umbilical cord but is not a native part of her body. The fetus, in many cases, has a separate gender identity (male). Thus, it is nonnormative to include a differently gendered part (fetus) as a native part of the woman. Only through a denial of its own identity can the fetus be considered a part of a woman’s body. This is a confusingly ridiculous proposition. Since the fetus is not an innate part of woman’s body, she loses her right to do what she wants.

2. The woman should not be forced to continue her pregnancy from rape or incest:

This is an emotionally compelling argument for a woman’s right to choose abortion. This argument posits justice to the woman for she cannot be punished with a child due to imposed pregnancy (lack of consensual sex). But justice is applicable to the fetus too! If the woman should not be penalized on account of imposed pregnancy, how can the fetus be penalized with death over the sin of his/her father? Furthermore, it would be more difficult to verify the rape claim of a woman seeking an abortion. Thus, this argument tilts in favor of pro-life or shall we say that the pro-choice lacks strength in this argument.

3. The woman should not be forced to deliver severely handicapped children:

As in the previous situation, the woman lacks the fundamental right to choose abortion. If killing a severely deformed fetus is valid, then killing a severely deformed or a handicapped child is also valid. Just as no one would accept killing a severely handicapped child (because of his personhood), the unborn fetus cannot be killed because of its personhood.

The personhood of the Fetus:

If the fetus is inanimate and not a person (with life), then discarding it is not a concern. After all, discarding something without life is tantamount to shredding a paper to bits or dumping garbage. But, if the fetus has life, then discarding it is tantamount to killing a child that cannot defend itself - a serious sin.¹

If the fetus has life, then it is a person with full human rights. But the contention is to determine the time during gestation when the fetus becomes a person. Pro-choice groups often delineate an arbitrary distinction between the fetus being a human being and the fetus being a person. But, the fetus does not undergo a change in its essence during its gestation, and even into adulthood. Moreover, science is yet to discover the time when actual personhood begins in the fetus. If that be the case, one should err on the side of life, for one should not risk the life of a fetus for it could well be a person. As Scott Rae writes, “uncertainty about the status of the fetus justifies caution, not abortion.”² 

Pro-choice groups have posited several breaks during the gestation of the fetus for the time of the beginning of its personhood to justify the killing of the unborn. ‘Viability,’ ‘Onset of brain activity,’ Sentience,’ ‘Quickening,’ ‘Implantation,’ and ‘Birth’ are these stages. But none of these breaks are empirically sufficient to justify the killing of the fetus.³ Scott Rae presents a compelling case for the personhood of the fetus from the time of conception:

 (A) An adult human being is the end result of the continuous growth of the organism from conception (this premise has hardly any debate).

(B) From conception to adulthood, this development has no break that is relevant to the essential nature of the fetus (this is the debatable premise, but…all proposed breaks do not have a bearing on the nature of the fetus).

(C) Therefore, one is a human person from the point of conception onward (this conclusion follows from the above two premises).⁴

The fetus has a unique and a separate genetic identity from conception. It possesses all capacities to mature into a full adult, thus the fetus is a full human being. The full personhood of the fetus compels the mother to bear all responsibility for the wellness of the fetus. Any failure on the part of the mother incriminates her.

Is abortion a sin? What does the Bible teach?

(1) God is actively involved in the creation and sustenance of the fetus from conception (Jeremiah 1: 5; Isaiah 49: 1; Psalm 139: 13-16).

(2) Bible uses the terms ‘conception’ and ‘birth’ interchangeably (Job 3:3; Jeremiah 1:5; Isaiah 49: 1; Psalm 51: 5), implying the fetus as a person from birth. In fact, Psalm 51: 5 states a continuity of personal identity (as a sinner) from conception to birth. The Greek term for a baby, ‘brephos’ is applied to a child in the womb (Luke 1: 41-44) and a newborn baby (Luke 2: 16), for Christ’s incarnation was recognized from the time of conception. 

Thus, it is evident that the Bible affirms the personhood of the fetus from conception, and that God is actively involved in fashioning the fetus from conception. HE knows us even before our conception. If a man kills the fetus, then it’s not only equivalent to killing a full human being, but it’s also equivalent to rebelling against God’s design of a human from conception (cf. Exodus 20: 13). Man sins when he rebels against God. Since abortion is a sin against God, a man should not abort his unborn baby.

But what about a medical situation that forces us to choose either the life of the mother or baby? If the doctor can save only one life, which is either that of the mother or the baby, what should be our choice? The dilemma here is not pro-life or pro-choice, but a combination of both – either the life of the mother or the baby. This is not a simple predicament. However, if all factors being normal (e.g. mother can resume healthy life); I would choose the mother over the baby. My reasoning is that the baby requires the mother for a normal life. If the mother dies, the baby cannot live a normal life (the baby would be raised without mother’s presence and love). However, the mother can resume a normal life at a certain point in time. Hence, my choice is for the mother to live, on the basis of normalcy. But this isn’t an easy decision.⁵

What about embryonic stem cell research? Any research that kills or damages the embryo, even for a greater good - a potential research to save a life in future - remains unacceptable. Just as a terrorist is condemned for believing that killing another will promote his or his people’s wellness, any scientific research should be unacceptable if it involves killing. 

Therefore, since the fetus is a person, it is the duty of the parents and the society to protect and save the unborn. Amen.  

Notes and References:

(1) This essay is largely an extract from Scott Rae’s work, ‘Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics,’ barring sporadic interposals of my thoughts. 

¹ We will not try to comprehend in detail the apparent contradiction in the Bible that portrays God as a cruel being desiring to kill the infants and children (Numbers 31: 17; 1 Samuel 15: 3; Psalm 135: 8, 136: 10, 137: 9 et al.). The Pro-choice groups use these verses to validate their claim. But, these verses ought to be seen in their context of judgment. Moreover, it is only the giver of life who has the sole authority to take away that life. If you are employed in an organization, your managing authority has the sole power to fire you, not anyone else in the organization. The rebelling man who does not subjugate himself to God’s authority will always doubt and question God.

² Scott B. Rae, Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics, 3^rd Ed, p139, 2009.

³ “Viability” is a point in time when the fetus can live on its own outside the womb. Medical technology constantly pushes viability back to the earlier stages of pregnancy, hence viability keeps changing. Viability also changes from fetus to fetus, and place to place (high technology America to rural India). But the fact remains that there is no link between the fetus’ ability to survive independently outside the womb and its personhood (essence). Thus, viability is more a referral to fetus’ location and dependency than its essence (personhood).

If death is a cessation of all of the brain’s activity, then one could rationally state that life begins when the brain begins to function, which approximately is at about 45 days into the pregnancy. But the crucial distinction is that the brain of a dead man is irreversibly dead – it cannot be revived. On the other hand, the fetus prior to 45 days possesses the latent (dormant) capability to develop into a full-fledged brain. In other words, the fetus with a latent brain activity is essentially different from a dead man whose brain can never regain activity. Thus, any pro-choice argument pertaining to the brain’s activity would be unconvincing.

Likewise one can argue that the fetus gains personhood during ‘sentience’ (point when fetus experiences sensations) or ‘quickening’ (when the mother feels fetus’ movement) or ‘implantation’ (embryo establishes its presence in the womb by producing signals or hormones) or ‘birth’ (birth of baby). But we can reasonably and rationally argue that the personhood of the fetus remains independent of these stages. For example, ‘birth’ signifies a change in location of the fetus from within the womb to the outside. But, change in location (from within the womb to its outside) does not change the personhood of the fetus. Since the beginning of personhood remains inconclusive during these stages, we can reasonably and rationally argue that the fetus has full personhood from the moment of conception.

⁴ Scott B. Rae, Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics, 3^rd Ed, p142, 2009.

⁵ For more information on choosing mother’s life over the fetus, you could read Richard Higginson’s work, Dilemmas: A Christian Approach to Moral Decision Making, p190, 1988.